Do you also do that when you go to a restaurant or a store? Do you tell the cashier "I'm not going to pay for this, that, and those, because I don't think you deserve the money"?
You never read the GPL, did you? The GPL disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, explicitly including those that you mention. If it wasn't legal in the US, do you think that it would have been included?
There's a problem with that, from a litigation standpoint. Suppose one of the guys who builds the diagnostics software is a little careless about where he gets some of his code. The company who owns the rights to said code finds out, and decides to sue Dell for using proprietary code or whatever.
Why should this differ from the Windows case, where they are happily shipping their systems with loads of third-party software? This smells like FUD aimed at the open development model (claiming that OSS developers are more likely to infringe copyrights in their development work than their proprietary counterparts, I'd say that the opposite is more likely, since nobody can see their code).
Re:What will change and what is the fix for TiVo?
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Is there another option for TiVo to keep using GPL software while finding some way to protect their DRM component from being hacked by the user?
Yes, they can fork the current GPLv2 codebase, and maintain it for themselves. It might be pretty expensive, but it's certainly an alternative.
It's my code, the GPL portion is a small bit and doesn't represent what the software is about (major funtionality) in the slightest.
Then why not write a replacement yourself instead of whining about it on Slashdot? What I think? I think that the GPL part isn't so tiny, it could even be substantial, and you are only whining because you want to freeload on the code, but you don't want to share back any derivative works. Thus, you are simply a whiner.
After all, if the FSF is willing to alter the GPL to stop Tivoization, what else are they planning to alter the GPL to prohibit?
If they were planning to alter anything else, it would certainly be in the current draft.
Re:Tivo has a very easy out...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I think Tivo should modify their box to simply report when the user is running non-standard code, then start a massive round of lawsuits for breach of contract-- It wouldn't be popular, but it would be justifiable, and legally sound.
How could you sue for breach of a contract the defendant never signed? Ahh, you're probably referring the the USA, where click-through and shrink-wrap licenses count as enforcible contracts.
Re:Can someone please explain to me...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
All it does is discourage companies that may be on the borderline from using GPL at all, IMO. Stupid move.
Why should we care about companies already playing creative sidestepping games with the previous version of the GPL? If user base was all we cared about, we would have used the BSD license.
Re:Can someone please explain to me...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
The 'anti-Tivoisation" clause of the GPLv3 is, in my opinion, RMS officially stating his contempt for all things capitalistic and potentially profit-making. He is about as anti-business as a human being can be, and he's working hard to drive the GPL to a 'pure' state, where no company can use GPL software.
Talking about pure, this is just pure FUD. Get back under your bridge, troll!
Re:Gah GPLv3 is total bullshit
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
to add features and roll in new fixes from GPLv3 open source software will simply become a corporate nightmare of attempting to find a legal middle-ground
No it won't. The GPLv3 is not compatible with the GPLv2, and thus code licensed under GPLv3 cannot be rolled into GPLv2 code in any way. There is really no "middle ground" in this case.
one of the problems with the original GPLv2 license was it was NEVER effectively taken on in court and defined in legal concepts or precedent as most other licenses tend to have been. I think this caused some serious trouble with it's reliability and suitability in business.
however with the FSF enforcing copyright transfer and shitting on business left, right and center
Care to back that up? Or I see, it is TiVo to the left, Microsoft in the center and Novell to the right?
nobody wants to deal with the issues surrounding a badly-understood licensing model.
I don't think that the GPL is as badly understood by copyright lawyers as you might think.
If it is so easy to misinterpret the GPL that it needs to be reiterated and re-explained by Stallman and the FSF, then it really is not doing it's job, is it?
The GPL is not updated because it have always been ambiguous, but because of ambiguities that have risen because of a changing legal landscape. Thus, to remove the ambiguities, the GPL need to be changed too. The GPLv2 has served its purpose well, but its time is running out and a new version is required.
How do you empower users and free up software when it is conceptually and legally ambiguous?
Could you please point out those conceptual ambiguities that you allege that the GPL contains?
Re:Why we stayed clear of the GPL
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Although they initially tried to add clauses restricting web services to the GPLv3, they took them out again because they realized that providing the software as a service doesn't count as "distribution" under copyright law, and therefore the GPL never applies at all. So even if such language existed in the license it would be unenforcable.
Does this mean that the Affero GPL is unenforceable/moot? Then why would the FSF put an exception into the GPLv3 allowing code licensed under the AGPL to link with code covered by the GPLv3, if the AGPL is unenforceable?
Re:Why we stayed clear of the GPL
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
If ones gives something to others while expecting to get something in return, is that really giving?
Remember that most recipients of GPL code never gives anything back (because they don't modify and redistribute), so to them, it could certainly be viewed as a gift. Only for recipients that modify and subsequently distribute the derivative work, the answer (to the question of wherher the GPL code is a gift or not) becomes less clear.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Tivo, LinkSys and the other companies that have used GPL'd software had a choice.
Please don't put Linksys together with TiVo. Linksys might not have complied with the GPL immediately, but have since released the source code for all Linux-based devices that I know of. They actually appreciate the community surrounding their products, which is showed by the release of the Linux-based WRT54GL after the migration to VxWorks for the mainline WRT54G. They also seem to appreciate the community around the NSLU2.
Meanwhile, TiVo is a totally different breed. They are unending in their efforts to lock "their" devices down to prevent people from exercising their rights granted by the GPL. If they are hard-hit by the GPLv3, so be it, they deserve it. They had it coming for a long time.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
That's why you need both closed and open source. To keep your freedom of choice.
But Stallman does NOT want you to have the choice.
Fortunately for you, Stallman does not have any say about this. Proprietary software won't go away because Stallman doesn't like it. It could theoretically go away for other reasons, but the probability is very low.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
In other words : you claim ownership upon other peoples work, just because you added a (tiny) bit to it?
If his contribution is so tiny, you could have written it yourself. It is more likely that the contribution is substantial, which would present a major hurdle to rewrite. In this case, you simply want to exploit other people's work for your own gain only. How is that any better?
In addition, derivative works are not invented by the FSF for the GPL. It is an established concept of copyright law. The GPL just is a little different from proprietary software licenses in its treatment of derivative works. If you use a piece of proprietary software in your program, you would have to negotiate a license for redistribution, which would probably cost you money (maybe even a lot). The GPL on the other hand demands no money for your use of covered code. Instead, it demands the publication of derivative works.
Your "freedom" seems to be to deny other people theirs.
Just like yours. The so called "freedom" provided by the BSD license is all about allowing people to deny freedoms to users of derivative works.
Not only that, but the process to revise the GPL has been a long time in the making. The process has been running for more than a year, and it's not some haphazard project started just to stop the MS-Novell deal as some people think (even though it now also tries to make that deal pointless). Microsoft and Novell should have anticipated that their deal could result in their agreement being targeted by the new version of the GPL, and if they didn't take this into account, well, that's their problem.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
The GPL is about restricting freedom for a potential end user.
You are probably confusing the definition of end user. No end user is restricted by the GPL, since the GPL only affects distribution, and end users don't distribute software, especially not modified software.
GPL is about restricting freedom from the potential middleman to make it potentially "more free" for the end user.
Earlier in your post, you wrote that the GPL is about restricting freedom for end users. You don't think you are contradicting yourself?
But, it isn't free in the most natural sense of the word.
An entirely subjective statement.
The GPL3 will really help to kill the linux appliance market
Only for appliances where manufacturers want to lock down the software so that it can't be modified. Other appliances can run Linux just fine. Just look at the Linksys WRT54G(L) and the Linksys NSLU2. What would either of them have to lose with the GPLv3 DRM clauses? The answer: Nothing.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
All these people should shut up and go use BSD already or something. Nobody's pointing a gun at them to use the GPL, but they still like to complain that they don't like the free "deal" they get from the GPL.
Exactly. The conclusion is simple: They definitely like the code (and thus want it), but they don't want to comply with the GPL. That's why the whine about the GPL "forcing" you to share "your property" with the world.
Another observation I have made is that many GPL-haters/BSD-proponents use the BSD as the baseline for comparisons. They then label the GPL as a "restrictive license, not much different from the EULAs of Microsoft, et al". I use the defaults provided by copyright laws as a baseline for comparison. By doing this, the truth becomes more apparent: While most EULAs are really restrictive licenses (since they try to remove freedoms compared to copyright law), the GPL is a permissive license (since it grants (a lot) more freedoms than copyright law). The BSD is even more permissive, but they are still mostly in the same ballpark.
Re:"Microsoft's lawyers are not stupid...."
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Someone knows what these 'mistakes' are?
I'd say he is referring to the fact that the Novell-MS vouchers don't have an expiration date, possibly making Microsoft end up as a distributor of GPLv3 software, which would automatically grant unlimited patent licenses to all recipients of this software for patents covering the (GPLv3) software they distribute.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
It's called a cut 'n paste troll. It is simply people that want to troll, but are unable to produce an original troll, so they just cut and paste.
Re:libgcc, libstdc++, and Bison
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Scummy license tricks have occurred in the past with some programs; what guarantees that the FSF won't do so in the future
Any examples of cases where the FSF has perpetrated "scummy license tricks"? No? Though so, troll.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 0
I agree. This reminds me of when Theo de Raadt was angry for not receiving any money from users of OpenSSH, even though those users earned a lot of money using it. Tough luck Theo, you should have used another license than the BSD if you wanted money or code for your work.:)
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
FYI, the OP is a known troll. This isn't the first time I've seen it, and I guess that it won't be the last.
also I'm not 100% sure that if you compile under gcc you have to keep it open
I'm 100% sure that you won't need to open the source of programs compiled with GCC. Read the license of GCC, it explicitly states that the output of the program is not covered by the GPL.
The price you pay to use GNU/Linux is if you modify it you have to give your modified code to everyone.
Not entirely true. If you modify, but keep the modified code in-house, you are not required to release anything at all. If you distribute the modified GPL code, you have to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code of the modified program to recipients of this program, licensed under the GPL. Any recipient of your modified GPL software can publish the source to the world if they want though.
However, it's not analagous, as laws like that are about keeping things that are "yours", "yours"
What about the limited terms of patents and copyrights? You could argue that they are also making what is "yours" "ours". I wouldn't agree with that argument though, since you cannot own "intellectual property", you are merely enjoying a few time-limited exclusive rights to your intellectial products. You own the rights, but not the intellectual products.
whereas the GPL is about making things that are "theirs", "yours".
No it isn't. If your software depend on software developed by someone else, it is only fair that the other developer has a say in how you license your combined (derivative) work. After all, nothing prevents you from writing an equivalent package yourself, where you would have all rights to it. If yu don't like being forced to use the GPL for derivative works, don't use GPL software as a foundation for yours.
However, requiring someone to GPL their own code if they wish to distribute some sort of GPL-code-derivative
But it doesn't require that. Unless of course, your "own" code depends on the GPL software. If it does, you simply have to accept that you have to comply with the license of that software.
I don't see what all the complaining is all about. If you don't like the requirement that derivative works are also licensed under the (L)GPL, don't base your code on GPL code. It is as simple as that. But I understand, you want to use the code, but not share your code accrding to the requirements of the (L)GPL. Well, tough luck.
isn't in the same ballpark - heck, not even playing the same game - as laws against, say, murder and theft. The former are assumptions about what you should be able to do with *other people's work*, the latter about the assumptions that can be reasonably made regarding *yourself* and *your property*.
I still assert that the analogy holds. Both sets of restrictions are there to stop people from reducing other people's freedom.
That is, unless you happen to agree with the collossal arrogance of people who consider the "right" to modify and redistribute someone else's work is somehow on par with so-called "human rights" like freedom of speech and self-defense.
It is an analogy, which doesn't mean that it is on par (i.e. equally important). The point is that both systems use minor restrictions for individuals to acquire greater freedom for society as a whole.
By the way, again, the GPL does not claim to have any effect on other peoples' work, unless that work is a derivative of a program licensed under the GPL.
So it's ok or not ok for them to put DRM on for their data? Then I'm assuming it's ok for you to access their software and make it so you can break their DRM?
Yes, that is correct. But it doesn't matter, since DRM only deters casual copying. Any determined cracker can defeat the DRM anyway.
Let's realize something here. If we allow them to protect content on the drives that are in their machine (note to the first responder to me) then they MUST have the ability to protect their protection systems, if we don't then what's the point.
I think that the point is to make DRM for content pointless, but not explicitly prohibited by the license.
Linux is meant to be for everyone, not just who the GPLv3 says it's for.
Meanwhile, GNU software is meant for the free software community, not for the whiners that want the software but refuse to comply with the license.
the point is GPLv3 isn't Linux's licensing agreement. It's Stallman's attempt at licensing Linux under his rules
I disagree. It is Stallman's attempt to close the perceived loopholes in the GPLv2. Linux (the kernel) will continue to be licensed under GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, while the GNU tools will go GPLv3. Do you think that Stallman should back off just because most Linux distributions use GNU software for a critical part of the system? It's his code, he gets to set the rules. If you don't like it, use something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you also do that when you go to a restaurant or a store? Do you tell the cashier "I'm not going to pay for this, that, and those, because I don't think you deserve the money"?
You never read the GPL, did you? The GPL disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, explicitly including those that you mention. If it wasn't legal in the US, do you think that it would have been included?
Why should this differ from the Windows case, where they are happily shipping their systems with loads of third-party software? This smells like FUD aimed at the open development model (claiming that OSS developers are more likely to infringe copyrights in their development work than their proprietary counterparts, I'd say that the opposite is more likely, since nobody can see their code).
Yes, they can fork the current GPLv2 codebase, and maintain it for themselves. It might be pretty expensive, but it's certainly an alternative.
Then why not write a replacement yourself instead of whining about it on Slashdot? What I think? I think that the GPL part isn't so tiny, it could even be substantial, and you are only whining because you want to freeload on the code, but you don't want to share back any derivative works. Thus, you are simply a whiner.
If they were planning to alter anything else, it would certainly be in the current draft.
How could you sue for breach of a contract the defendant never signed? Ahh, you're probably referring the the USA, where click-through and shrink-wrap licenses count as enforcible contracts.
Why should we care about companies already playing creative sidestepping games with the previous version of the GPL? If user base was all we cared about, we would have used the BSD license.
Talking about pure, this is just pure FUD. Get back under your bridge, troll!
No it won't. The GPLv3 is not compatible with the GPLv2, and thus code licensed under GPLv3 cannot be rolled into GPLv2 code in any way. There is really no "middle ground" in this case.
one of the problems with the original GPLv2 license was it was NEVER effectively taken on in court and defined in legal concepts or precedent as most other licenses tend to have been. I think this caused some serious trouble with it's reliability and suitability in business.I guess you never heard of Daniel Wallace?
however with the FSF enforcing copyright transfer and shitting on business left, right and centerCare to back that up? Or I see, it is TiVo to the left, Microsoft in the center and Novell to the right?
nobody wants to deal with the issues surrounding a badly-understood licensing model.I don't think that the GPL is as badly understood by copyright lawyers as you might think.
If it is so easy to misinterpret the GPL that it needs to be reiterated and re-explained by Stallman and the FSF, then it really is not doing it's job, is it?The GPL is not updated because it have always been ambiguous, but because of ambiguities that have risen because of a changing legal landscape. Thus, to remove the ambiguities, the GPL need to be changed too. The GPLv2 has served its purpose well, but its time is running out and a new version is required.
How do you empower users and free up software when it is conceptually and legally ambiguous?Could you please point out those conceptual ambiguities that you allege that the GPL contains?
Does this mean that the Affero GPL is unenforceable/moot? Then why would the FSF put an exception into the GPLv3 allowing code licensed under the AGPL to link with code covered by the GPLv3, if the AGPL is unenforceable?
Remember that most recipients of GPL code never gives anything back (because they don't modify and redistribute), so to them, it could certainly be viewed as a gift. Only for recipients that modify and subsequently distribute the derivative work, the answer (to the question of wherher the GPL code is a gift or not) becomes less clear.
Please don't put Linksys together with TiVo. Linksys might not have complied with the GPL immediately, but have since released the source code for all Linux-based devices that I know of. They actually appreciate the community surrounding their products, which is showed by the release of the Linux-based WRT54GL after the migration to VxWorks for the mainline WRT54G. They also seem to appreciate the community around the NSLU2.
Meanwhile, TiVo is a totally different breed. They are unending in their efforts to lock "their" devices down to prevent people from exercising their rights granted by the GPL. If they are hard-hit by the GPLv3, so be it, they deserve it. They had it coming for a long time.
Fortunately for you, Stallman does not have any say about this. Proprietary software won't go away because Stallman doesn't like it. It could theoretically go away for other reasons, but the probability is very low.
If his contribution is so tiny, you could have written it yourself. It is more likely that the contribution is substantial, which would present a major hurdle to rewrite. In this case, you simply want to exploit other people's work for your own gain only. How is that any better?
In addition, derivative works are not invented by the FSF for the GPL. It is an established concept of copyright law. The GPL just is a little different from proprietary software licenses in its treatment of derivative works. If you use a piece of proprietary software in your program, you would have to negotiate a license for redistribution, which would probably cost you money (maybe even a lot). The GPL on the other hand demands no money for your use of covered code. Instead, it demands the publication of derivative works.
Your "freedom" seems to be to deny other people theirs.Just like yours. The so called "freedom" provided by the BSD license is all about allowing people to deny freedoms to users of derivative works.
Not only that, but the process to revise the GPL has been a long time in the making. The process has been running for more than a year, and it's not some haphazard project started just to stop the MS-Novell deal as some people think (even though it now also tries to make that deal pointless). Microsoft and Novell should have anticipated that their deal could result in their agreement being targeted by the new version of the GPL, and if they didn't take this into account, well, that's their problem.
You are probably confusing the definition of end user. No end user is restricted by the GPL, since the GPL only affects distribution, and end users don't distribute software, especially not modified software.
GPL is about restricting freedom from the potential middleman to make it potentially "more free" for the end user.Earlier in your post, you wrote that the GPL is about restricting freedom for end users. You don't think you are contradicting yourself?
But, it isn't free in the most natural sense of the word.An entirely subjective statement.
The GPL3 will really help to kill the linux appliance marketOnly for appliances where manufacturers want to lock down the software so that it can't be modified. Other appliances can run Linux just fine. Just look at the Linksys WRT54G(L) and the Linksys NSLU2. What would either of them have to lose with the GPLv3 DRM clauses? The answer: Nothing.
Exactly. The conclusion is simple: They definitely like the code (and thus want it), but they don't want to comply with the GPL. That's why the whine about the GPL "forcing" you to share "your property" with the world.
Another observation I have made is that many GPL-haters/BSD-proponents use the BSD as the baseline for comparisons. They then label the GPL as a "restrictive license, not much different from the EULAs of Microsoft, et al". I use the defaults provided by copyright laws as a baseline for comparison. By doing this, the truth becomes more apparent: While most EULAs are really restrictive licenses (since they try to remove freedoms compared to copyright law), the GPL is a permissive license (since it grants (a lot) more freedoms than copyright law). The BSD is even more permissive, but they are still mostly in the same ballpark.
I'd say he is referring to the fact that the Novell-MS vouchers don't have an expiration date, possibly making Microsoft end up as a distributor of GPLv3 software, which would automatically grant unlimited patent licenses to all recipients of this software for patents covering the (GPLv3) software they distribute.
It's called a cut 'n paste troll. It is simply people that want to troll, but are unable to produce an original troll, so they just cut and paste.
Any examples of cases where the FSF has perpetrated "scummy license tricks"? No? Though so, troll.
I agree. This reminds me of when Theo de Raadt was angry for not receiving any money from users of OpenSSH, even though those users earned a lot of money using it. Tough luck Theo, you should have used another license than the BSD if you wanted money or code for your work. :)
FYI, the OP is a known troll. This isn't the first time I've seen it, and I guess that it won't be the last.
also I'm not 100% sure that if you compile under gcc you have to keep it openI'm 100% sure that you won't need to open the source of programs compiled with GCC. Read the license of GCC, it explicitly states that the output of the program is not covered by the GPL.
The price you pay to use GNU/Linux is if you modify it you have to give your modified code to everyone.Not entirely true. If you modify, but keep the modified code in-house, you are not required to release anything at all. If you distribute the modified GPL code, you have to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code of the modified program to recipients of this program, licensed under the GPL. Any recipient of your modified GPL software can publish the source to the world if they want though.
What about the limited terms of patents and copyrights? You could argue that they are also making what is "yours" "ours". I wouldn't agree with that argument though, since you cannot own "intellectual property", you are merely enjoying a few time-limited exclusive rights to your intellectial products. You own the rights, but not the intellectual products.
whereas the GPL is about making things that are "theirs", "yours".No it isn't. If your software depend on software developed by someone else, it is only fair that the other developer has a say in how you license your combined (derivative) work. After all, nothing prevents you from writing an equivalent package yourself, where you would have all rights to it. If yu don't like being forced to use the GPL for derivative works, don't use GPL software as a foundation for yours.
However, requiring someone to GPL their own code if they wish to distribute some sort of GPL-code-derivativeBut it doesn't require that. Unless of course, your "own" code depends on the GPL software. If it does, you simply have to accept that you have to comply with the license of that software.
I don't see what all the complaining is all about. If you don't like the requirement that derivative works are also licensed under the (L)GPL, don't base your code on GPL code. It is as simple as that. But I understand, you want to use the code, but not share your code accrding to the requirements of the (L)GPL. Well, tough luck.
isn't in the same ballpark - heck, not even playing the same game - as laws against, say, murder and theft. The former are assumptions about what you should be able to do with *other people's work*, the latter about the assumptions that can be reasonably made regarding *yourself* and *your property*.I still assert that the analogy holds. Both sets of restrictions are there to stop people from reducing other people's freedom.
That is, unless you happen to agree with the collossal arrogance of people who consider the "right" to modify and redistribute someone else's work is somehow on par with so-called "human rights" like freedom of speech and self-defense.It is an analogy, which doesn't mean that it is on par (i.e. equally important). The point is that both systems use minor restrictions for individuals to acquire greater freedom for society as a whole.
By the way, again, the GPL does not claim to have any effect on other peoples' work, unless that work is a derivative of a program licensed under the GPL.
Yes, that is correct. But it doesn't matter, since DRM only deters casual copying. Any determined cracker can defeat the DRM anyway.
Let's realize something here. If we allow them to protect content on the drives that are in their machine (note to the first responder to me) then they MUST have the ability to protect their protection systems, if we don't then what's the point.I think that the point is to make DRM for content pointless, but not explicitly prohibited by the license.
Linux is meant to be for everyone, not just who the GPLv3 says it's for.Meanwhile, GNU software is meant for the free software community, not for the whiners that want the software but refuse to comply with the license.
the point is GPLv3 isn't Linux's licensing agreement. It's Stallman's attempt at licensing Linux under his rulesI disagree. It is Stallman's attempt to close the perceived loopholes in the GPLv2. Linux (the kernel) will continue to be licensed under GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, while the GNU tools will go GPLv3. Do you think that Stallman should back off just because most Linux distributions use GNU software for a critical part of the system? It's his code, he gets to set the rules. If you don't like it, use something else.